As a fellow preacher (with Giglio)- what do you think of his theatrics (emotionalism and background music) - does it strike you as manipulative? Is that a good thing? Funny how the difference is night and day between an evangelical pastor and a Rabbi- the evangelical wants to win one at any cost, and a Rabbi supposedly tries to turn away any potential convert to gauge their seriousness- sort of like Joshua in Joshua 24:16-22

16 Then the people answered, "Far be it from us to forsake the LORD to serve other gods! 17 It was the LORD our God himself who brought us and our fathers up out of Egypt, from that land of slavery, and performed those great signs before our eyes. He protected us on our entire journey and among all the nations through which we traveled. 18 And the LORD drove out before us all the nations, including the Amorites, who lived in the land. We too will serve the LORD, because he is our God."

19 Joshua said to the people, "You are not able to serve the LORD. He is a holy God; he is a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins. 20 If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you."

21 But the people said to Joshua, "No! We will serve the LORD."

22 Then Joshua said, "You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen to serve the LORD."

Optical development is different in vertebrates and invertebrates and Giglio's account is more recognizable as being somewhat closer to what happens in the later than in the former.

In human eyes, the optical nerve and retina are an outgrowth of the brain - so there is NEVER a point at which optic nerves from the eye are separated from optical nerves from the brain.

But contrast, in cephalopods (squid and octopus) the eye forms as an ingrowth of the skin the nerve cells of which then grow to form connection with the brain.

Giglio's account, then, vaguely a match for what happens in squid and octopus but is quite a misrepresentation of what happens in humans and other vertebrates - which is actually a pity because he could have made his point about the remarkable nature of optical development in the human foetus without such an error. In my assessment, he's gilding the lily in a quite unnecessary manner and while his major point is sound (we are fearfully and wonderfully made!) his science is quite wrong.

Incidentally, it's the above variation in the embryonic development of the human and octopus eyes that accounts for the oft mentioned blind-spot in the human eye and the claim that the octopus eye is a "better design". Personally, I think this to be a dumb argument on the basis that neural processing in humans combines the images from two eyes and eliminates problems caused by the blind-spot. Actually, I enjoy arguing that the blind-spot in the human eye gives us a distinct advantage - namely, that we can engage in party tricks involving the closing of one eye and the concentrated focusing on a single point. When octopus have parties, attempts to do this are met with repeated choruses of "I can still see the dot" with attendant jocularity all round. Which just shows that ANYTHING can be a "design fault" depending upon what you take the design criteria to be!

If you google "development of the eye" you'll get LOTS of hits - some of which are even marginally understandable to those without Nobel prizes in neurology or embryology! I think the below is particularly helpful if you don't mind a mental stretch;